Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-01-07

measure. He proceeded to draw de-
plorable picture of the navy, too weak to
| fight and too slow to run away, and our
navy yards useless and worn out and ut
terly incapable of constructing frst-class
war vessels, and in tracing the causes OF
this worthlessness and decay to the
cumbersome organization of the navy. He
fortified his position with extracts from
the expressed opinion of Secretaries
Whitney and Chandler. He stated that
/ the opposition to the measure was di-
rected to that feature which provided for
consolidation of the bureaus of equip
ments and the resulting one Of steam
engineering and construction and repair.
But for the consolidation of these three
bureaus there would be en- obstacle TO
the passage of the bill.
Mr.. Boutelle of Name, opposed the
bill. The existing organization OF
the navy was adequate to all
the demands of the present and
probable requirements of the future.
| Under the organization as It stood to-
cay the United States navy department
was confronted IN 1861 by a more
/ gigantic foe than il was likely to get in
the immediate future, and had been en-
abled in the twinkle of an eye to call into
existence naval department great and
efficient in power and resources. This
organization had been found to be
effectie until the return to power
] OF that power which had opposed tie
navy during the late disturbance. 1t
might be the cause of national regret that
| the organization of the navy department
in 1861, that the department had not had
the assistance of the present chairman of
the committee on naval affairs, or of his
associates on the other side of the cham
hers, but at that time those gentlemen had
been engaged in efforts to consolidate
the United States navy and reduce the
expense of the department by getting rid
of it's surplus officers and men, but the
navy had done the best It could without
them. He thought it had done pretty
/ well. Now, however, the proposition
was made to uproot the organization I'M
der which everything creditable tn the
navy had thus far been achieved. After
the election of Democratic president, or
perhaps he ought to qualify that by say
| ing after the induction Of
Democratic president into office
under due forms of law
and the appointment of q Democratic Sec
retary of the navy, a proposition was
brought in with the tacit Endorsement Of
the navy department for the leorganiza-
! ton of that department. But this propo-
sition was essentially different from the
pending measure which had not received
the Endorsement of the department. De-
| scendipg to discussion of its details, he
severely criticised the feature, which he
| declared would break down the autonomy
of the great engineering bureau at the
very hour when the country was looking
| to it TO place the American navy in adj
vance of the best achievements of the
world.
Mr. McAdoo of New jersey favored the
bill. The gentleman from Maine, Mr..
Boutelle, mad extolled the great achieve
ments of the nsvy during war. He Nc
AGoo) recognized the grandeur of these
achievements, but called attention to the
great expense which they had entaiied
upon the people OF the country. Had a
consolidation of the bureaus been made
in 1859, the same achievements would
have b, en- performed by the navy, with
greater efficiency and withfar less cost to
the people.
Pending further debate the committee
rose.
Mr.. Henderson of Iowa introduced
bill authorizing the construction of a
bridge across the Mississippi river at
Dubuque, Iowa. Referred.
The house then adjourned.